SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(J&K) 658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.
Radha Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. – Respondents
OWP No. 902/2010
Decided On : 01-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R.K. Sharma
For the Respondent: Amit Gupta

The court confirmed that governmental entities can be held strictly liable for damages resulting from negligence in maintaining public safety regarding hazardous activities, including electricity supply.

Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Electricity Act, 2010 - Sections 2(16) and 2(54) - Electricity Rules, 1978 - Failure to maintain safe heights for electric wires leading to electrocution of minor - Petitioner sought compensation for loss of life of son - Respondents' negligence established through investigation, leading to a clear liability for damages. (Paras 12-22)

(B) Res Ipsa Loquitur - Doctrine applied as negligence inferred from occurrence of the accident - The principle holds that the mere happening of an accident can suggest negligence when it occurs in scenarios under the management of defendants. (Paras 15-16)

(C) Right to compensation under public law - Supreme Court affirmed the right to compensation for the loss of life as a contravention of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. (Paras 17-18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s son died from electrocution when he came into contact with low-hanging electric wires attributable to negligence of the respondents. The boy was only 13 years old, excelling academically, and his death caused significant emotional and psychological harm to the family. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded the respondents were liable for negligence and ordered compensation based on existing government policies related to accidents caused by electricity. (Paras 30-34)

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents were negligent in the maintenance of electric lines, leading to the minor’s death and the entitlement of the petitioner to claim compensation. (Paras 26-27)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the respondents had failed to meet statutory requirements for electric line height, and this negligence directly contributed to the accident resulting in death. It held that the state has a duty to compensate for such incidents under public law principles. (Paras 20-28)

Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents ordered to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner within two months.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks compensation for negligence leading to death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments presented regarding negligence and compensation claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court analyzes liability under relevant laws and principles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. application of strict liability for hazardous activities discussed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. court determines maintainability of the compensation claim. (Para 29 , 30)
6. court concludes on compensation amount awarded. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.

Gist

1. This writ petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking an appropriate writ of mandamus directing Respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 20 Lacs along with interest to the petitioner.

Primary Facts

2. The case of the petitioner is that her son, Vishal Sharma lost his life due to electrocution when exposed to live electric wire hanging between the poles at the height of 3 to 4 ft. from the ground. This Act was totally attributable to the negligence of the Respondents. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the matter was brought to the notice of Respondents, the Electricity Department and a request was made to straighten the electric lines/service lines and maintain the height at safe and required height in terms of Electricity Act and Rules framed thereunder, so that no one may come in contact with the live wires, however, needful was not done to rectify and remove the defects by straightening the electric wires by keeping them at safe height, as a consequence of which, the son of the Petitioner died.

3. It is stated that the Petitioner's son was only 13 years old and was a brilliant student who had secured 88% marks as per the School Certificate and was studying at Jagriti Mission School, Talab Tillo, Jammu and had a very bright future ahead of him. However, due to the carelessness and negligence of the Respondents, the Petitioner lost her son at a very young age.

4. It is stated that Petitioner's, Son Vishal Sharma was on a visit to his maternal uncle's home. On 22.07.2009, while he was working in the village Panghor in the agriculture field, he came in contact with live electric wires hanging at the height of about 4 to 5 ft. above the ground level and suffered a massive electric shock and injuries on his neck. Consequently, he was shifted to Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu but as a result of the aforesaid electric shock, he died. The same is reflected on perusal of the post-mortem report conducted by GMC, Jammu.

5. In this context, FIR Bearing No. 05/2010 under section 304-A RPC has been registered against Respondents on 07.01.2010 at Police Station Gajansoo, Jammu.

Submissions of the Petitioner

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the Son of the Petitioner has died due to the negligent acts attributable to Respondents who failed to maintain the electric wires as provided under the provisions of the Electricity Act and Rules framed thereunder and thus, the state is under legal obligation to compensate the Petitioner because due to their negligent Act, a precious human life was lost. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the state is under legal obligation to protect the life of its Citizens. It is further submitted that the state and its functionaries have failed to discharge the constitutional and statutory obligations by not taking requisite safety measures and as a consequence of which, precious life of a young son of the Petitioner has been cut short and accordingly, the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, now, Union Territory is under obligation to compensate the Petitioner by way of damages.

7. It is submitted, though Respondents have stated in their objections that the height of the wires at the relevant point of time was 1

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top